the court of appeal as legal transfer – heikki pihlajamäki 231 the following types of business. Lawyers would show up to present their cases, which, given the frequent postponements, had advanced to different phases. Some were first-instance cases, others appeals. The parties were always represented by lawyers, of which there were usually four of five active at any given time at the Court. The handling of the case began by the plaintiff ’s lawyers presenting the case by reading his justicatio appellationis (in appeals cases) or libellus (if it was a first-instance case) out loud and then handing it in ad acta, for the record. The defendant’s lawyer would then ask for the copy and usually deliver his ownexceptio the next time the case came up on the docket. The subsequent procedural phases, replicaandduplica, followed in the same way.621 Sometimes the Court of Appeal Prosecutor (Oberfiscal) would present his cases – accusatorial, first-instance and against noblemen. The procedure was similar to civil cases.622 In civil cases and the accusatorial cases, most of the legal discussion took place in the written statements of the lawyers.623 A presenting judge presented draft decisions of the Court, and the drafts were sometimes copied into the record. After the presenting judge had read his proposal aloud, the other judges expressed their opinion, with a vote sometimes taking place. The Svea Court of Appeal early on adopted the same general gemeines Recht format of civil procedure that was in use in the Dorpat court. Civil cases started with a libellus, then proceeded to the exceptio, replica, and sometimes totriplicaandconclusio.624 This, however, was where the similarities ended, the differences as to the actual legal sources that the two Court of Appeals used being considerable. In short, whereas the ius commune or gemeines Recht was a common source of law in the Dorpat court, at the Svea court it was not. 621 LVA, Akten des Livländischen Hofgerichts 1630 –1709, 109/1/7, Protocollum votarum 1666-1669, Ober Fiscalis vs. Jürgen Patkull, fols. 168, 183, 200. 622 See, for instance, LVA, Akten des Livländischen Hofgerichts 1630-1709, 109/1/7, Protocollum Votarum 1666 –1669, Oberfiscal vs. Jürgen Patkull, fol. 21. 623 See, for instance, LVA, Akten des Livländischen Hofgerichts 1630–1709, 109/1/28, Protocollum votarum 1695-1696, fol. 44: “3. Idem[H.P.:actor officiosus] cont: frau Anna Christina Nolcken, Capit: Rems: Landenberg: Vorliest und gibt ad acta Except: in comp: Act: cum Doc: sub N13. Eichler: Bittet Copij. Ille übergibt zugleich Mandatum.” 624 See, for instance, Riksarkivet (hereafter RA, Swedish National Archive), Svea hovrätts huvudarkiv (hereafter SHA), E VI a 2 aa:128, Liber causarum1650, Åke Wrångh vs. Jacob Theif (no pagination).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=